i-gel® from Intersurgical: clinical evidence listing

Beleña JM, Núñez M, Vidal A, Gasco C, Alcojor A, Lee P, Pérez JL. Anaesthesist. 2015 Apr;64(4):271-6

140 patients split into device groups, with speed of insertion, success rates, leak pressure and tidal volume evaluated. i-gel proved quicker to insert and generally the results were comparable.

Link to abstract.

Jagannathan N, Sommers K, Sohn LE, Sawardekar A, Shah RD, Mukherji II, Miller S, Voronov P, Seraphin S. Paediatr Anaesth.; 23(2): 127-33

Total of 170 children were assigned to either the i-gel® or LMA Supreme®, with leak pressure the primary outcome measured. Secondary evaluations included insertion time, insertion success rate, fibreoptic view and complications, to name a few. Resulting median leak pressure was higher with i-gel® and the authors conclude it could be a ‘useful alternative to the Supreme®’.

Link to abstract.

Theiler L, Gutzmann M, Kleine-Brueggeney M, Urwyler N, Kaempfen B, Greif R. Br J Anaesth 2012; 109(6): 990-995

Over a period of 24 months, 2049 uses of the i-gel® were measured across five independent hospitals in Switzerland to evaluate insertion success rates, leak pressures, adverse events, and risk factors for failure. Patients’ mean age was 47 years. The authors concluded that the i-gel® is a reliable device, failing in less than 5% of patients and providing high leak pressures. Serious adverse events are rare.

Abstract text